Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-06-11
THE SAN ANTONIO OUTRAGE.

The Times has no hesitation in pronouncing
| the action of the Council yesterday, refusing
the prOhibitiOnsts the use of the plaza for
meetir gs, both unfair and impOlitic. Such die
tinctions have not heretofore been made.
Granting that the people who asked this PriVi
lege are extreme and fanatical in their views,
and that what they propose to effect is against
the property interests of this city, this is g
country where the largest liberty of speech is
guaranteed, and the right of the people to
peaCeably assemble in public meeting is leal-
Ously guarded. 1t would be time enough to
prohibit such meetings when they became dis
orderly, or If they were held ostensibly for in
Ccndiary purposes.
The large majority of our people are anti
Prohibitionists, and the Council was doubtless
honest in attempting to carry out their wishes;
but all the same, the action was impolitic, and
instead of helping along the anti prohibition
cause and thus serving the interests of san
Antonio, Will have an opposite effect, and will
be used all over the state by the Prohibltionsts.
We cannot afford 10 follow the pTOscriptive
examples the Prohibitioniste have, in some In
stances, Get US. If personal liberty is 10 be
maintained, II Will not be by such course. 1t
won't do for ant-ProhibitiOnists TO become
Prohibitionists in that way.-ISan Antonio
Times.
The whole affair is TO be regretted, the action
of the City Council and the outrageous conduct
of irresponsible parties at the mass meeting,
who disgraced themselves and the ca Sc for
which they ostensibly, though certainly not
with authority, acted, and whose conduct we
fear Will unjustly be charged upon the anti
ProhibiuOnists as body, though they will GER
tainly everywhere repudIate such lawlessness.
Austin Statesman.
Without doubt the San Antonio out
rage was inspired by the intolerance Of
the San Antonio authorities in refusing
public plaza to the public; and the hood
lums who broke up the prohibition meet
ing felt themselves justified in preventing
by force what the municipal government
had sought to prevent by refusal, viz: the
right of the people to peacefully meet
and express publicly their opinions on q
measure which the constitution Of the
United States does not inhibit the people
from adopting if the people will TO do so.
This disgrace to San Antonio and
shame to Texas and injury to the anti
prohibition cause was born OF an intOler-
ant and lawless spirit, as manifested even
in the common council of the city; the
same spirit has been manifested else
where, and there are men identified with
the liquor traffic who do their cause SIS
much injury in less violent manner than
that adopted by the brewers employe
st San Antonio, but in way fully
as significant of the intolerant
spirit entertained. The prompt and
energetic condemnation Of this spirit by
prominent anti-prohioition newspapers
comes none too soon for the good of the
cause they advocate, and should teach the
bulldozers that they but solidify public
sentiment against themselves when they
prescribe men for opinions sake. The
intolerance at San Antonio began in boy
cotting, then manifested itself in re-
fusal to allow the people public plaza
in which to meet, and then found